KAMLESH KUMAR VERMA vs MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. ARUN TADE COMBINES

THIS is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 directed against the order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, District Raipur (hereinafter referred to as ''the District Forum'' for convenience) in Complaint No. 142/2002 vide order dated 8.10.2002.

THE complaint of the appellants in brief is that they owned one international tractor and a trolley bearing registration No. CPT 2926. During February, 2001 Mahendra Verma and one other agent of respondent No. 1 visited their village and told about ''Chappar Phad Ke'' scheme launched by the respondent No. 1. It is averred by the appellants that they were given to understand that under the Chappar Phad Ke scheme the old tractor and the trolley will be taken back on the present value and a new tractor and trolley will be made available through financing by the Bank. It is further averred that it was assured that any outstanding loan against old tractor and trolley, margin money for bank loan, registration and insurance charges for the new tractor and the trolley shall also be adjusted out of the price of the old tractor trolley and balance will be returned along with the new tractor. It is also averred that the agent of the respondent No. 1 also told that a gift item valued Rs. 15,000/-, a Kirloskar pump and a generator and a sprinkler or a generator or cash Rs. 15,000/- will also be given instead. Thereafter as averred the appellants after contacting respondent No. 1 at Deopuri the old tractor was valued at Rs. 1,42,500/-. The agent Mahendra who told that the quotation was inflated by Rs. 15,000/- to cover the RTO and other expenses gave a quotation for the new tractor for Rs. 3,65,000/- to the appellants. The appellants signed certain blank papers, stamp paper and also handed over the Rin Pustika for their holdings. The old tractor was also handed over to the respondent No. 1 with registration papers. A new tractor was given to the appellants on 21.2.2001 but the Rin Pustika and registration papers have not been returned to the appellants and thus are liable for deficiency in service. The appellants have prayed for an award of Rs. 4,56,000/- towards damages on various counts and a direction to return the original registration and other documents. The appellants have filed their own affidavits as well as that of the driver of the tractor Sewakram in support of their contentions.

Respondent No. 1 in its reply has denied the averments of the complainant regarding exchange of old tractor and trolley for a new tractor trolley, valuation of old tractor trolley and refund of balance, offering any gift of Rs. 15,000/- valuing the old tractor trolley or assuring that no cash need be paid by the appellant for obtaining a new tractor trolley by him or any of his agents or employees. The allegation that the old tractor trolley and implements registration book and Rin Pustika were handed over to the respondent has also been denied by the respondent. As per the version of respondent No. 1 the appellant was given a new Mahendra DI265 tractor, a trolley plough, and a cage wheel on 21.2.2001.

IT is further contended by the respondent No. 1 that the new tractor trolley was obtained by the appellants by pledging the joint holding and the respondent No. 1 asked the appellants to pay the difference in margin money, etc. amounting to Rs. 70,825/- and filed a civil suit for recovery of the same hence the complaint was filed to avoid this liability. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have admitted having financed the appellants for obtaining a tractor trolley after hypothecation of the tractor trolley and mortgaging the lands held by the appellants but have denied having retained the papers regarding the registration of the tractor trolley.

THE District Forum has after detailed discussion of the contention of appellants and the respondents declined to grant any relief to the complainants dismissing the complaint. The learned Counsel for the appellants assailed the impugned order on the grounds that the Forum has failed to appreciate the facts of the case while the learned Counsel for the respondents defended the impugned order. From the perusal of the records and going through the contentions by the parties it is obvious that the complaint is based on various complicated questions of facts, which will require detailed evidence which is not possible in a proceeding of a summary nature. More-over from the copy of plaint of a civil suit filed by the respondent No. 1 and reply of the appellants, it appears that the matter is already the subject matter of a civil suit. In view of the above facts in our opinion the impugned order by the District Forum needs to be affirmed. Therefore, the appeal cannot be allowed and is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.